The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. No comment on the move or the general pattern of "Chinese word X" redirects. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 18:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Chinese word "weiji" → Chinese word for "crisis"  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Implausible search term. Weiji already exists and points to the same target. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Weak Delete - While I guess this is harmless, I also can't see it as being useful either, particularly when people are just going to search " weiji" by itself. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 20:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Move article to Weiji as primary topic so as to get rid of having to make "Chinese word for ..." redirects. Here's the look from: All pages with titles beginning with Chinese word which shows this isn't a major search method we need to cover. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• delete. Whether the article should be moved is a separate issue, but in either case an implausible search term, not a useful construction for a redirect.-- JohnBlackburne ^words _deeds 22:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

We just don't have any "Chinese word X" articles besides this one. Chinese word sea goes to Zhonghua Zihai. So might as well deal with that issue without starting another RM AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 23:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. No real input aside from the initial contest in over two weeks. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 20:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• DFSMS → Hierarchical storage management  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Data Facility Storage Management Subsystem → Hierarchical storage management  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• DFSMS → Hierarchical storage management  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• System Managed Storage → Hierarchical storage management  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

deletion: DFSMShsm is only one piece of DFSMS, and not the most important. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 15:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC) reply

DFSMS consists of one z/OS element (DFSMSdfp) and four z/OS features (DFSMSdss, DFSMShsm, DFSMSrmm, and DFSMStvs).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to History of mathematics. Purely by the numbers, things are roughly evenly split between keep, delete, and retarget, with some dabbing thrown in. However, I don't think that does the (lengthy) conversation justice, and I read this as a consensus that the items should not point to New Math. With that in mind, I'm retargeting to History of mathematics as the most common choice and I find those arguments more persuasive. No opposition to a reasonable dab page, assuming it appropriately meets the criteria. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 20:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Modern Mathematics → New Math  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

• Modern Math → New Math  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

Misleading redirect, as "modern mathematics" has nothing to do with the pedagogical motivation of New Math. I don't know if there's a clear retarget choice here, either. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 22:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Basic concept of modern mathematics (first edition 1961): https://www.amazon.com/Basic-concepts-modern-mathematics-Addison-Wesley/dp/B0006AX0LU/
• Concepts of Modern Mathematics (first edition 1975): https://www.amazon.com/Concepts-Modern-Mathematics-Dover-Books/dp/0486284247/ From the original intro to the book: "Some years ago, "new math" took the country's classrooms by storm. Based on the abstract, general style of mathematical exposition favored by research mathematicians, its goal was to teach students not just to manipulate numbers and formulas, but to grasp the underlying mathematical concepts. The result, at least at first, was a great deal of confusion among teachers, students, and parents. Since then, the negative aspects of "new math" have been eliminated and its positive elements assimilated into classroom instruction. In this charming volume, a noted English mathematician uses humor and anecdote to illuminate the concepts underlying "new math": groups, sets, subsets, topology, Boolean algebra, and more. According to Professor Stewart, an understanding of these concepts offers the best route to grasping the true nature of mathematics, in particular the power, beauty, and utility of pure mathematics. No advanced mathematical background is needed (a smattering of algebra, geometry, and trigonometry is helpful) to follow the author's lucid and thought-provoking discussions of such topics as functions, symmetry, axiomatics, counting, topology, hyperspace, linear algebra, real analysis, probability, computers, applications of modern mathematics, and much more. By the time readers have finished this book, they'll have a much clearer grasp of how modern mathematicians look at figures, functions, and formulas and how a firm grasp of the ideas underlying "new math" leads toward a genuine comprehension of the nature of mathematics itself."
• Why Johnny Can't Add (1973) - the seminal book on the topic, read it here: http://www.rationalsys.com/mk_johnny.html It starts: "For many generations the United States maintained a rather fixed mathematics curriculum at the elementary and high school levels. This curriculum, which we shall refer to as the traditional one, is still taught in fifty to sixty per cent of the American schools. During the past fifteen years a new curriculum for the elementary and high schools has been fashioned and has gained rather wide acceptance. It is called the modern mathematics or new mathematics curriculum." And further in the book: "The origin of the term modern mathematics is relevant. Even before the members of the Commission on Mathematics had determined just what they were going to recommend, they gave addresses to large groups of teachers. Their main message was that mathematics education had failed because the traditional curriculum offered antiquated mathematics, by which they meant mathematics created before 1700. Implicit in this contention was the assumption that young people were aware õf this fact and therefore refused to learn the material. Wou1d you, argued these educators, go to a lawyer or a physician whose knowledge of his profession was limited to what was known before 1700? Though these speakers were presumably informed in mathematics they ignored completely the fact that mathematics is a cumulative development and that it is practically impossible to learn the newer creations if one does not know the older ones. Nevertheless, the Commission contended that we must drop the traditional subject matter in favor of such newer fields as abstract algebra, topology, symbolic logic, set theory, and Boolean algebra. The slogan of reform became "modern mathematics".

You can find more references yourself, I am sure. Mikus ( talk) 23:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Quick side note: the title of the redirect is inappropriately capitalized; even the passages given above aren't referring to a proper noun. In any case, none of the above is relevant. "Modern math(ematics)" is a generic phrase referring to the field of mathematics as it is studied in the modern day. For every reference you can dig up that refers to it in the context of New Math, one can find thousands more that don't. And even then, most of the passages above are still using the phrase fairly generically, not as a synonym for New Math. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 03:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

It is capitalized because it identifies Modern Mathematics as a movement, not modern mathematics in more general sense. Like, um, windows and Windows, or apple and Apple. Mikus ( talk) 16:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• I've added a notification of this listing at WT:WPM. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 03:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• delete both. To me "modern maths/mathematics" is just the maths taught and studied today, i.e. Mathematics. but we don’t need redirects for "modern mathematics", or "current mathematics", or "today’s mathematics", or with any other unnecessary prefix that just indicates the topic as it is considered now. Otherwise the same would be needed for all other fields and topics. Readers should just search for and use "Mathematics".-- JohnBlackburne ^words _deeds 08:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Retarget, simply to Mathematics. The references given above are at best references to a "new" math curriculum/syllabus for laying elementary foundations to access "modern mathematics" (i.e., contemporary math), these teachers' toys gathering all their "fame" under the coinage "New Math". In my perception there is no technical term "Modern Mathematics" with usefully confined meaning, there are just teaching styles, eager to to be perceived as modern. In no way there is a meaningful connection of "modern mathematics" with "New Math". Hopefully, a lucky reader, searching for "modern&math" is sufficiently inspired and guided onwards by the Mathematics article. Purgy ( talk) 08:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete both. The two terms are too generic to warrant an entry. Paul August ☎ 15:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

But see conditional keep below. Paul August ☎ 10:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete or retarget. Redirecting "Modern Mathematics" to "New Math" is absurd and stupid. "New Math" was a redesign of school mathematics curricula. Modern mathematics, in any reasonable sense of that word, has nothing to do with that. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Next time read the quotations first before rushing to the keyboard. Mikus ( talk) 16:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete/Have an article I can actually see an encyclopedic treatment of this topic: perhaps the focus can be history. There does exist a significant difference between modern mathematics and classical mathematics; e.g., the former emphasizing structures and logical while the latter has an aspect of mysticism (like the matter of the existence of infinity and that of God). -- Taku ( talk) 01:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete both. The meaning of "modern math" is time dependent as is any topic who's name starts with modern. Let time pass and what was considered modern is no longer modern, so what may have been considered modern in its time can not be so considered today. On the other hand, "New Math" refers to a very specific change in the curriculum of the 60's and 70's. At the time, the New Math may have been talked about as modern math to distinguish it from the traditional study, but this was only valid for a limited time and was not considered a synonym. -- Bill Cherowitzo ( talk) 04:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep or Disambiguate. Here is a quotation from Ian Stewarts book, from the 1994 edition, which places the book slightly outside the New Math period. Ian Stewart writes: "Concepts of Modern Mathematics began as an extramural course, taught in Warwick University in 1971. Several dozen citizens of Coventry, ranging from school students to a retired automotive engineer, gathered for two hours every week to grapple with what was then called 'Modern Mathematics' in Britain and 'New Math' in the United States. What was new about this particular style of mathematics was not its content - most of it was at least a century old - but the fact that it was being taught in schools." Mikus ( talk) 05:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Conditional keep: If the term "Modern Mathematics" can be shown to be a notable alternative British term for "New Math" (as the Stewart quote above suggests, but does not establish), then that term should be added to the article New Math, and "modern mathematics" should be a disabiguation page (with two entries, the first linking to mathematics, the second to New Math), and Modern Mathematics and Modern Math should be redirects to that disambiguation page. Paul August ☎ 10:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply

If kept, and a disambiguation page "modern mathematics" is created as suggested above, than I'm happy with the first entry linking to History of mathematics as suggested below by power~enwiki. Paul August ☎ 14:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Ian Stewart’s Concept of Modern Mathematics was written in 1975, over 40 years ago. Since then at least in the UK mathematics teaching has changed massively, and what was once so novel it needed a book to explain it is now mainstream. There is no longer a separate "modern mathematics" to contrast with "traditional mathematics", as there might have been in 1975. There’s just mathematics.-- JohnBlackburne ^words _deeds 11:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Well probably much the same could be said for the term "New Math". That doesn't mean that the term is not still notable. Paul August ☎ 11:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply

JohnBlackburne, you seem to have missed the fact that the quote is from 1995 edition. Also, as Ian Stewart wrote, and as I keep repeating, it was called "Modern Mathematics" at THAT time, therefore disambiguation page or mention on New Math page would look something like: New Math as it was known in the U.S., or Modern Mathematics as it was known in Britain at that time. There is a link to timeframe right there. Mikus ( talk) 16:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep there seems to be enough coverage of this as a name for the New Math ( [1] [2]), though the New Math article should describe how/when "Modern Mathematics" was used. If retargeted, I think History of mathematics would be the redirect target. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to History of mathematics (or possibly disambiguate only if the New Math article is expanded to actually mention the historic use of the alternate phrase). I think all the sources that use "modern mathematics" to refer to the educational movement in New Math are from the 70s, except Stuart which is from the 90s edition of a 70s book. Further, several of them are not even using it as a title but as an adjective - lots of things were called modern in the 70s that we do not call modern now. There are many sources from the 80s onwards which use "Modern mathematics" to mean either what we already have in History_of_mathematics#Modern (i.e. Maths from Gauss, Boole etc onwards), or the more recent computerisation and ultra-specialisation. An example source: History and Philosophy of Modern Mathematics edited by William Aspray, Philip Kitcher, 1988. -- Qetuth ( talk) 07:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The term Modern Mathematics has very specific meaning regarding TEACHING of mathematics in elem/secondary school. It means less drill and more understanding of the same basic arithmetic that has been taught for at least 300 years. It also means very specific new topics like set theory, boolean algebra, linear algebra, statistics, theory of probability -- all the good stuff that finally became relevant for AI and ML development. Mikus ( talk) 16:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• If "Modern Mathematics" only means what you say in one specific field, and means something else outside that field (such as in history of maths, tertiary education, etc) then I think you would still need to find consensus that this usage is the primary meaning overall for the redirect to make sense.

But, to focus on just the primary/secondary teaching field, I think there is a good reason that the term is not used that way in New Math, nor in Mathematics education in the United Kingdom, nor Mathematics education (in fact in the latter "modern" is used several times to mean something completely different). Our article Modern elementary mathematics seems to be talking about a broader philosophy which New Math might have been considered an example of. There are numerous textbooks from this century which use "Modern Mathematics" in their title or subtitle in a similar way - a pedagogy based on recent developments in education research and psychology, more prominent cross-discipline links, and the use of multimedia in teaching. Even though the term has been used to refer to New Math in the past, New Math is the overwhelmingly widely recognised term for one specific (and outdated) example of the implementation of a broader concept, what "Modern" educators would call "Modern Mathematics Education". Thus is an inappropriate target for redirect even were the educational context the most common use of the phrase. -- Qetuth ( talk) 23:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• A further comment looking more closely at the 4 sources that you provided:

- The Hafstrom book is a tertiary textbook which uses uncapitalised "modern mathematics" in its blurb in a general sense, not as the name of an educational movement, and appears to have nothing to do with "New Math". This supports my interpretation perfectly.

- The original Stewart foreword is extremely clear that the educational movement is called "New Math", and uses uncapitalised "applications of modern mathematics" and "modern mathematicians" in a general sense. This also seems consistent with my reading.

- The revised Stewart foreword does say that "Modern Mathematics" was the name of the movement in Britain then (implying it is not called that any more?). This source supports your position.

- The Johnny source has quite a detailed history and was a very interesting read. It uses the term specifically many times, but never capitalized or emphasized outside of chapter titles, and in most instances it is part of the larger terms "the modern mathematics curriculum" or "the modern mathematics movement". It uses "new mathematics" just as frequently. It says that the phrase "modern mathematics" was already in use as propaganda for the perceived need to modernize curricula, before it was decided what it would mean. It also frequently uses phrases like "modern texts" and "modern mathematicians", and points out that the basis of the argument is the modern vs traditional dichotomy. A recurring theme is that there is a disconnect between the poorly named "modern mathematics curriculum" (which was just a new way to teach old maths) and actual modern mathematics, showing the use of modern as an adjective being just as valid as in the name of a movement. I think overall as a source it shows that "modern mathematics" was used to describe an era of educational reform (and perhaps should get a mention in New Math), but that this is not the only meaning of the term as "modern" is a broader concept. I definitely don't think it shows that the capitalized "Modern Mathematics" specifically should be redirected to "New Math".

-- Qetuth ( talk) 01:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I agree that "New Math" is more time-specific term that a more generic "Modern Mathematics", so having a disambiguation page would probably be the best choice. While we are at it, I tried introducing "Modern Mathematics" twice as an alternative term to "New Math", and my edits were reverted both times. So, let us agree here, that adding something of the sorts "...or Modern Mathematics as it was also known at that time, especially in Great Britain" would not be reverted. Also, regarding modern "modern mathematics", it is often called, somewhat derogatory, New New Math. Mikus ( talk) 02:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to History of mathematics or Mathematics The typical use of the term "modern mathematics" refers to mathematics as it developed in the late 19th century. There is extensive study of this major shift in mathematics in such books as Plato's Ghost. It is a historical movement, so redirecting to the History of mathematics article makes the most sense. However, because it also describes how mathematics is done today, "Modern mathematics" could simply be a redirect to the Mathematics article. "Modern mathematics" should not redirect to "New math". "New Math" is the historical event of the 1960s which attempted to incorporate some of the developments of modern mathematics into the American school curriculum. This is quite distinct from "modern mathematics" as a whole. If a couple of authors have referred to New Math as "modern mathematics", it is simply because the New Math was an attempt to bring modern math into American schools (and to a lesser extent, European schools). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seberle ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Retarget - I agree that "modern mathematics" is fundamentally a more generic term than the specific-sounding neologism "new math", and it looks as if going to either ' history of mathematics' or a section within it makes the most sense. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 22:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 18:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Wikipedia:NPF → Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Retarget to Special:NewPagesFeed Wikipedia:Page Curation#New Pages Feed. The redirect would be much better used as the proposed target than the current one and also "not public figure" is not even mentioned in the heading of the subsection and it's usage is not wide. WP:UNKNOWNPEOPLE is a better redirect for the current target. I also don't think anyone is going to lookup WP:NPF to find the subsection on BLP, AFC/NPF reviewers would use this redirect more. KingAnd God 12:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep, considering that this redirect has 500+ incoming links. Changing the target would break a lot of talk pages. Steel1943 ( talk) 16:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

  It can be resolved easily with AWB. If that's your main concern then it's really not helpful in the purpose of this discussion, which is to improve the experience for editors. ​ KingAnd God 17:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

  AWB can't fix any possible links to this redirect that are present in edit summaries; in fact, no one can. The potential for this redirect to be present in edit summaries is quite high, given that the redirect has existed for over 11 years. I'd say it's best to leave things as is, and create Wikipedia:NPF (disambiguation) as a {{ Wikipedia disambiguation}} if necessary. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

  I doubt anyone is going to have a hard time finding the right page after clicking on WP:NPF from an edit summary and even if they did, it wouldn't matter because helping reviewers get to NPF conveniently is probably more important than random readers not finding a policy section which they are unlikely to even look for especially from an edit summary that is in the history of a page where not many people would care to check. Besides, the term NPF in the community to mean "new pages feed" is probably more widely used than "not public figure". KingAnd God 18:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

  I just added a hatnote to the top of the target page explaining possible confusion with using "WP:NPF" and arriving at the current target page. Either way, I cannot support this proposal since any redirect to the "Special:" namespace is forced to be a soft redirect. In addition, one cannot assume that an editor is trying to find Special:NewPagesFeed over Special:NewPages, two different pages in the "Special:" namespace; forwarding readers to Wikipedia:Page Curation to decide where they want to go is a better option than a soft redirect to the "Special:" namespace, especially considering that even which page in the "Special:" namespace which an editor is trying to find is not for sure. (So, I guess this also makes me "very weak retarget to Wikipedia:Page Curation", though I am "very weak" since "keep" is preferred due to the fact that the redirect has targeted where it has for over 11 years, as mentioned previously.) Steel1943 ( talk) 19:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

  Wow, I didn't know that redirects to the Special namespace will not work like normal. That leaves WP:Page Curation as the best alternative. KingAnd God 11:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. There is, rightly, a very high bar for changing the targets of shortcut redirect to avoid breaking the context of original uses, and AWB should absolutely not be used to edit the contents of archived discussions as suggested. A long-established and well-used shortcut like this one will continue to acquire new uses for the original meaning, even after a retargetting, as long as the target remains relevant (which it certainly is here). Hatnotes to alternative uses are the only viable option here. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 17:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• You Could Could Be Born Again → You Could Be Born Again  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Unlikely repetition of the second word. Nothing links here, it was not the result of a page move, and the target is itself an obscure topic. Reyk _YO! 10:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete as housekeeping. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 23:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete - This seems useless. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 22:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete useless redirect -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 10:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The two uses this year prior to the nomination and 7 uses in the entirety of last year are consistent with misidentified bot activity given the implausibility of the term, no incomming internal links, and no hits on google unrelated to this redirect. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. I'll add these two at Fast attack; others should add as desired. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 18:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Fast attack → Attack submarine  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Fast-attack → Attack submarine  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

fast attack is not limited to submarines Dom from Paris ( talk) 10:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I've combined the two entries "Fast attack" and "Fast-attack" to this one RFD AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 00:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep Disambiguate If there are other uses, should it not be turned into a disambiguation? 'Fast attack' itself (as a noun, without submarine appended) is used colloquially to mean a nuclear attack submarine. The lead section of Attack submarine itself even says so. If this does not qualify as "Alternative names redirect to the most appropriate article title" (the first purpose of redirects described in WP:R) then I don't know what does. - Cake~ talk 10:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment a quick search for fast attack on google throws up first Fast attack craft this seems a much more appropriate target. Dom from Paris ( talk) 12:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I can't find any usage of 'fast attack' as a shortening of 'fast attack craft', but if such usage does exist, then a disambiguation would be best in my opinion. In the context of submarines however, I can find usages of 'fast attack' that omit 'submarine'. Here are 3 such examples: [3] [4] [5] - Cake~ talk 12:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Here's one that is used by a manufacturer [6]. But there are other uses of fast attack and it seems to be widely used in fire fighting [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

+1 for disambiguation - Cake~ talk 14:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Disambiguate Between Fast attack craft and Attack submarine as well as any other potential targets. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 12:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Disambiguate as above. I'm seeing uses for crafts, boats, submarines, vehicles AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 23:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 17:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• List of ongoing disputes → List of territorial disputes  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Redirect does not specify what kind of disputes. - CHAMPION ^{( talk) ( contributions) ( logs)} 09:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete as vague. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 23:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete: potentially misleading. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 06:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Reluctant delete. This is a well used phrase, and every time it is used the context is clear. However that context is roughly equally territorial disputes of one kind or another; and industrial relations disputes. If it was just the former then the redirect would be a good one and should be kept. However, the second category is huge, possibly nebulous, and only a small subset are encyclopaedic (even fewer have a standalone article) - I'm also not aware that those we do have coverage of are tracked anywhere so there is no good target for a disambiguation entry. Finally there are other disputes, that while less common than the preceding to, do still get used - principally (but not exclusively) intellectual property disputes. Intellectual property disputes have much the same issues as industrial relations ones, with the added disadvantage that our coverage of tends to be appalling (as one example, the very notable SCO–Linux disputes is a sprawling mess of many different articles, none of which seem to be up-to-date). Thryduulf ( talk) 00:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete - This is maddeningly vague, and there's no inherent reason to think that the term should get limited to dealing with territorial ones. The GNU/Linux naming dispute also comes to mind. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 08:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 18:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Naruto (fox demon) → Naruto  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Pretty non-standard disambiguation that is unnecessary and rarely gets any hits. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 06:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment Wouldn't this go to Naruto Uzumaki as {{ R from unnecessary disambiguation}}? AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 21:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • The disambiguation is so unnecessary that it's not worth keeping. R from unnecessary disambiguation is more for things like Naruto (character) (If the article was entitled Naruto). _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 07:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This got 54 hits this year prior to the RfD nomination, which is not "rarely" at all. Assuming that the disambiguation is correct (which seems plausible from the article) then it is exactly the sort of thing {{ R from unnecessary disambiguation}} is for - disambugators that people use unnecessarily. The bottom line is that this is harmless and well used so there is no reason for deletion. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • 54 hits in a year is pretty rare to me. Most likely they are people for whom this link came up in search suggestions when they typed Naruto and not people who would seriously type it of their own volition. As for your harmless argument, see WP:COSTLY. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 10:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I agree with the nom that the search term Naruto (character) is more likely. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 18:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Sasusaku → Naruto  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Non notable fan slang term that is not mentioned in the article. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 06:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete as the portmanteau / name-meshing would be an WP:XY here and they aren't a notable Supercouple. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 23:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was moot. The user has changed their userpage. ansh 666 02:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• User:Edward Mordake → Edward Mordake  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

WP:UPG violation. 10 ^Eleventeen 05:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep as a soft redirect, which per this edit is what the user wants, and soft redirects from a user page to an article are perfectly acceptable - indeed WP:UPG#Categories, templates that add categories, and redirects explicitly says "Soft redirects are allowed on userpages." Thryduulf ( talk) 15:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Soft redirect per Thryduulf. I don't think this actually violates UPG, someone will have to explain how it does if so. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 17:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep soft redirect, specifically Soft redirects are allowed on userpages as Thryduulf said (and I apparently missed completely). -- kelapstick^{( bainuu)} 20:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.